Classical philosophy and Darwinian biology are far more compatible than is usually assumed. In fact, looking at either from the standpoint of the other can enrich and deepen our appreciation of both. From a Darwinian point of view, the theories of Plato and Aristotle deserve to be taken very seriously. From the classical point of view, Darwinian biology is much less reductionist than its enemies suppose.

Wednesday, May 1, 2013

Genuine Morality & the Teleologists

I have spent some time now with
Steven Forde’s conference paper “Darwin and
Political Theory”.As I said in an
earlier post, this is a very good survey of Darwinian scholarship in moral
research and political theory.Forbes
has done a good job of covering the relevant work with honest care and
sympathy.I would highly recommend it to
anyone who wants to get a quick idea of what Darwinists have to say about
morality.

It seems to me that there are
two key ideas in the paper that lead logically to a very dismal
conclusion.One is that Darwinism is
nihilism.Evolutionary thought cannot
support any genuine morality.The other
is that Darwinism is true.Taken
together, this means that genuine morality is, shall we say, history.I gather that Forde is not happy with this
conclusion and I am pretty sure that very few people will be.

I will confine my comments to
the last section of his paper, which addresses those he calls the teleologists.

A completely different approach to the problem of
reconstructing moral theory within the confines of Darwinism is found in
thinkers we may dub the teleologists. This strain of thought is far from new;
virtually from the moment Darwin’s theories became public, attempts were made to
combine it with some form of teleology, to rescue Darwinism from its apparently
amoral and nihilistic implications by finding some grand design or higher
purpose at work in natural selection. In the late nineteenth century, this
burgeoned into a veritable cottage industry.73 The approach has been revived in
recent times, in different ways, by Hans Jonas, Leon Kass and Larry Arnhart.

That certainly includes yours
truly as Jonas and Arnhart, and to a lesser degree Kass, have been my teachers
on these matters.

Forde makes two general
arguments against the teleological (Aristotelian) approach toward a Darwinian account
of morality.The first is indicated in
the passage above.This strain of
thought finds “some grand design or higher purpose at work in natural selection.”In other words, evolution is goal directed,
driving toward better and higher forms of being.Forde thinks this is implausible and he is
right.The second argument is that the teleologists
suppose that a coherent moral order is possible given the nature of human
beings as it has emerged in the history of our species.Forde thinks that Darwinism tells against
this and he is wrong.

To begin with the first
argument, it is true that we teleologists recognize a distinction between
higher and lower forms of life.Hans
Jonas is the best guide here.He recognized
that living organisms are fundamentally distinct from inorganic matter and he
supposed that this told us something important about the Kosmos: it had within
it, from the very beginning, the potential for producing life and
consciousness.He did not, however,
argue that there was some progressive force in evolution driving toward the
emergence of human souls.It is rather
something like this: just as the sun presents the nature of hydrogen in the
context of solar history, so living organisms present the potential for life in
the context of earthly history.The
evolution of life continues to present new and increasingly complex
possibilities for organic and spiritual development.I don’t think that his commits the teleologists
to any progressive few of evolution.Natural selection selects only for reproductive success.That process has resulted both in viruses and
virtuous heroes without favoring the one or the other.

In order to explain the
genuinely moral, we teleologists make a distinction between the natural forces
that generate life and govern its evolution and the natural ends that various
creatures and especially human beings pursue.This is Aristotle’s distinction between reason the political community
comes to be (mere life) and the reason its existence is justified (the good
life).

Allow me to employ an
analogy.How does the art of cooking
come to be?Human beings need to eat and
they eventual discover in their environments which foods will nourish them.Cooking makes it possible to digest many
foods more efficiently, which may have been a driving force in human
evolution.If that is how the art of
cooking comes to be, what makes it beautiful is that it was also guided by the
desire to live well.A good French meal
(or Indian, Mexican, Chinese, etc.) aims not at what is merely nutritious but
at what is exquisitely gratifying.In
doing so, it does not act against nature.Nature has fashioned us to enjoy fat, spices, and protein.A great cuisine fashions its table from the
natural pallet, with an eye to satisfying natural appetites.The grand meal is not a product of
evolution.There was no driving force in
our evolutionary history that aimed at the Gumbo Ya Ya that you can get at Mr.
B’s in New Orleans.That perfect stew is
the result of human chefs aiming to satisfy natural appetites.

Likewise, politics and ethics
are not products of natural selection.They are the products of human beings creatively working to create a
satisfying life.Morality cannot work
against natural selection, as Forde often says.That would put us out of business in short order.It aims to sustain the best human life.

As for Forde’s argument that no
coherent moral order is possible, given the chaotic mix of desires and
inclinations that natural selection has bequeathed to us, that flies in the
face of the most obvious facts.If it
were true, then no political communities would ever have arisen nor would any
moral principles ever have been discovered or asserted.That politics, religion, and moral codes
exist is proof that moral coherence is good enough for government work.The point of political theory and ethics is
to figure out which kinds of regime and which kinds of moral orders best
support human flourishing.

I do not share Stephen Forde’s
pessimism.The Darwinian account of life’s
history is doubtless true.This cannot
result in nihilism if it recognizes the value of genuine morality as human
beings have always recognized it.That
it does.